Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:If you can attach IC units before any unit is deployed, couldn't you attach a Tyranid Prime to a deep striking Warriors unit?

Or does this ruling only apply to Marines because GW doesn't like anyone else?

Sadly no...GW still hates us Tyranid players.

We can't do it because our FAQ expressly forbids it.

Looks like the Duke's Assault Boat army is still a go. You'd think they might have said something about that.

Melissia wrote:If you can attach IC units before any unit is deployed, couldn't you attach a Tyranid Prime to a deep striking Warriors unit?

Or does this ruling only apply to Marines because GW doesn't like anyone else?

Attaching a Prime to a unit in a pod was never a problem of when you had to do it (like Shrike/Karandras and Infiltrating a unit). It's just prohibited by the Nid FAQ.

Worth bearing in mind in that case that it helps Eldar as well although not much since Karandras is still bollocks.

Awwweee...BT don't have to pay SW prices for Storm Shields .

Well, that's unbelievably stupid.

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Could you elaborate? I can't view the FAQs at work.

Melissia wrote:Well, that's unbelievably stupid.

Yes...yes it is...

It's the single reason I want to strangle the FAQ writers...everything else I can get along with, but that one ruling makes me want to punch a baby.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Well, that's unbelievably stupid.

Yes...yes it is...

It's the single reason I want to strangle the FAQ writers...everything else I can get along with, but that one ruling makes me want to punch a baby.

Really? Not Shadow in the Warp not affecting things in vehicles?

puma713 wrote:

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Could you elaborate? I can't view the FAQs at work.

i believe the rules lawyer issue was that you don't attach IC's till deployment (which is placement on the table) so no unit could ever actually use shrike's outflank rule since they would already technically be on the table for him to join them or some such. since IC's joining is now before the declarations of outflanking/deployment/reserve, that's no longer a problem. that being said, i *never* saw anyone arguing against using himt him that way outside of the YMDC subforum.

Corrode wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Well, that's unbelievably stupid.

Yes...yes it is...

It's the single reason I want to strangle the FAQ writers...everything else I can get along with, but that one ruling makes me want to punch a baby.

Really? Not Shadow in the Warp not affecting things in vehicles?

That one is a poor judgement as well, but I can live with it since it's at least consistant with the fact that METAL BAWKSES are apparently some sort of one way psychic wall that no psychic power may enter but can radiate auras and such with no problems at all, and in fact improves their radius slightly. Stupid, but consistant.

The ICs being banned from spore pods make no sense whatsoever though, other than the FAQ writer routinely gets his teeth kicked in by a tyranid player and is a vindictive, petty person.

warboss wrote:

puma713 wrote:

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Could you elaborate? I can't view the FAQs at work.

i believe the rules lawyer issue was that you don't attach IC's till deployment (which is placement on the table) so no unit could ever actually use shrike's outflank rule since they would already technically be on the table for him to join them or some such. since IC's joining is now before the declarations of outflanking/deployment/reserve, that's no longer a problem. that being said, i *never* saw anyone arguing against using himt him that way outside of the YMDC subforum.

Oh yeah, that. Yeah that was already accepted around here anyway.

Damn, still nothing about psychic powers affecting ICs and a unit and what happens to the effects if the IC leaves.

Oooh, the Dais of Destruction cannot be upgraded? Guess that answers that debate!

Right, only Space Marine named characters can be upgraded.

I did a happy dance, I really did. BT's or DA's here I come! I've been looking for a viable Termie heavy army for this year and now I have one!

Hulksmash wrote:I did a happy dance, I really did. BT's or DA's here I come! I've been looking for a viable Termie heavy army for this year and now I have one!

you may want to wait for the grey knight codex before assembling those models as they're rumored to have termie troops as well.

Interesting:

GW wrote:Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule destroys an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no matter how the unit was destroyed? For example the resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes out an enemy unit. (pg. 25)

A: Yes.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

That one is a poor judgement as well, but I can live with it since it's at least consistant with the fact that METAL BAWKSES are apparently some sort of one way psychic wall that no psychic power may enter but can radiate auras and such with no problems at all, and in fact improves their radius slightly. Stupid, but consistant.

The ICs being banned from spore pods make no sense whatsoever though, other than the FAQ writer routinely gets his teeth kicked in by a tyranid player and is a vindictive, petty person.

Consistent except for every other anti-psychic thing in the game besides Shadow in the Warp affecting psykers in vehicles?

Yeah, that's consistent!



Another ruling that I think causes more trouble than its worth is the ruling for ICs joined to units giving up Power For Pain tokens when killed. They ruled this only happens if the model is an IC at the time, so if its an old school 'retinue', then the IC doesn't give up a separate pain token until he 'becomes' an IC (by having the rest of his unit killed).

The problem is, most people I know play that an IC that is joined to a unit continues to count as being part of that unit until his next turn (when ICs are normally able to leave a unit).

What does this all mean? Well, if a 'retinue IC' is part of a retinue and the rest of his unit gets gunned down by shooting (for example) then the opposing DE player would NOT get a Pain Token because he's the last member of the unit (and he's still alive)...but he DOES become an IC as soon as the last model in his unit is destroyed.

So now in the ICs next movement phase he officially counts as no longer being part of his (former) unit, which I guess (?) at that point gives up a pain token to the unit who gunned them down last turn. And now apparently the IC can be killed and give up a 2nd pain token?

Eh, the whole thing makes my head hurt.

Heh, Implosions missles can't be used to snipe anyone.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Corrode wrote:
Really? Not Shadow in the Warp not affecting things in vehicles?

That one is a poor judgement as well, but I can live with it since it's at least consistant with the fact that METAL BAWKSES are apparently some sort of one way psychic wall that no psychic power may enter but can radiate auras and such with no problems at all, and in fact improves their radius slightly. Stupid, but consistant.

Shadows in the Warp is no more a psychic power than runic weapons or psychic hoods are. The only thing consistant was that the ruling gave mech lists another edge.

Belial

1 x Termie command squad with apoth, standard, cyclone, 4xThammer

6 x termie squads w/cyclone and 4xThammer

add 4xchainfists on 4 of the cyclones

1850pts

3++ Scoring terminators with Deathwing Assault, interesting.

Too bad I couldnt fit in a terminator libby, with all the updates, they still have unlimited range psychic hoods.

Mech Guard armies are disappoint.

Deadshane1 wrote:Belial

1 x Termie command squad with apoth, standard, cyclone, 4xThammer

6 x termie squads w/cyclone and 4xThammer

add 4xchainfists on 4 of the cyclones

1850pts

3++ Scoring terminators with Deathwing Assault, interesting.

Nice. Maybe we'll start seeing some more DA around the tournament scene!

puma713 wrote:Interesting:

GW wrote:Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule destroys an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no matter how the unit was destroyed? For example the resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes out an enemy unit. (pg. 25)

A: Yes.

Yes I think this one has been overlooked a bit, and could be interesting in a game....

Does this mean that DE would get PFP from sweeping advance too?

airmang wrote:

puma713 wrote:Interesting:

GW wrote:Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule destroys an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no matter how the unit was destroyed? For example the resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes out an enemy unit. (pg. 25)

A: Yes.

Yes I think this one has been overlooked a bit, and could be interesting in a game....

So if a unit of DE warriors is within 6" of a unit of SM, who are falling back and can't regroup, and the SM fall back off the table...

Yeah, the way this seems to read is that ANYTHING that a DE unit does that would cause a unit to be destroyed (even if indirectly) would cause them to gain a pain token.

liam0404 wrote:Does this mean that DE would get PFP from sweeping advance too?

Seems so.

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and
then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the
Drop Pod? (p69)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

Does that prevent say Blood angels to split their assault squads into 5 man squads and DS? I fint it hard to believe...

This Q&A was already there in the DA FAQ, so i wonder if this is a real change or an error of copy/paste - consitency thing...

airmang wrote:Yeah, the way this seems to read is that ANYTHING that a DE unit does that would cause a unit to be destroyed (even if indirectly) would cause them to gain a pain token.

If an enemy unit deepstrikes ontop of a DE unit and is destroyed (or maybe it is removed from play) due to a mishap .

If an enemy unit is trapped after falling back (assuming that the enemy unit is surrounded by a DE unit), which DE unit gets the pain token. The unit that caused the enemy unit to fall back or the DE unit that did the trapping?

I think this ruling creates more questions than answers personally.

Rugrud wrote:

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and
then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the
Drop Pod? (p69)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

Does that prevent say Blood angels to split their assault squads into 5 man squads and DS? I fint it hard to believe...

No, a BA player would roll for the unit collectively and then combat squad them as they deepstrike. This is asking if you can combat squad before the game has begun, put half in a Drop Pod and the other half in reserve.

puma713 wrote:

liam0404 wrote:Does this mean that DE would get PFP from sweeping advance too?

Seems so.

They already did before this FAQ!

airmang wrote:Yeah, the way this seems to read is that ANYTHING that a DE unit does that would cause a unit to be destroyed (even if indirectly) would cause them to gain a pain token.

Ummm, no. You still have to be able to identify that a unit actually destroyed another unit. For example, a unit falling back off the table is not being destroyed by any unit, they count as casualties due to a rule unrelated to any unit.

Rugrud wrote:

Q: Can you take a Drop Pod with a 10-man squad and
then put a combat squad in it, deploying the other combat
squad on the table, or leave it in reserve but not in the
Drop Pod? (p69)
A: No, because squads that are placed in reserve may not
break down into combat squads.

Does that prevent say Blood angels to split their assault squads into 5 man squads and DS? I fint it hard to believe...

This Q&A was already there in the DA FAQ, so i wonder if this is a real change or an error of copy/paste - consitency thing...

That seems to be the case!

Crap, no more Drop Podding into terrain. My marines might explode

Huh? I didn't see anything like that. There's a line about missing the table and a bunch of other Drop Pod stuff that has nothing to do with that at all, but I didn't see anything about terrain in the Space Marine FAQ 1.1 or the main rule book FAQ.